[Vision2020] North Polk Street (Was: Moscow City Council MondayAgenda)

[J Ford]

Mark;

Yes, but because of this developer's penchant for INCOMPLETE submissions and 
Dean's strong-arming of the P&Z, City Council and his attempt to do 
like-wise with the citizens of Moscow and neighbors of this particular 
"development", there is little to recommend this "development" and even less 
to recommend this developer.  Take for instance his ability to tie up City 
Staff and City resources for projects he has EVER (that's E V E R) to do 
more than put an idea for on paper much less actually start or finish.  Take 
for instance the fact that he now supposedly owns the Good Will building and 
when it was recently flooded due to broken pipes - where was he?  Why, no 
where to be found, that's where.  Even though he stated very clearly and 
definitively at a recent P&Z meeting "I'm always available by cell, 24/7", 
he was totally unavailable during that emergency and has NEVER been 
available to any of the neighbors of Polk St. Ext.  Granted, his cell phone 
has voice mail, but HE NEVER RETURNS phone calls, no matter how many are 
left for him and the neighbors DO NOT HAVE THAT NUMBER!!!  Other people in 
town do, but not the neighbors.

This "development" was first presented as an answer to housing shortage, 
then as a "retirement" development and NOW its back to being a "housing 
development" - the end result is that it was, is and will always be a 
development for NSA students and CC families, with Wilson's "the Big House" 
being in the very middle of the whole mess.  When Mike went in front of the 
P&Z Workshop, his second plan for a "retirement community" included very few 
sidewalks and a gate that would allow access to only the "members" of that 
community.  The gate was dropped at the meeting (very big of you, Mike since 
you never really were all that convinced it was going to pass anyway) and he 
stated he would "look into putting additional sidewalks in, even though we 
really are not required to."  Dean asked why this particular developer 
should be made to accommodate the City in this request for additional 
walking space and when it was reasoned with him that Mike was talking about 
people 55 and older and possibly infirmed in some form or another, Mike's 
reply was "Well, I'm not building it - all I'm doing is making the plans for 
developing the land."  In other words - he copped out.  AND STILL IS, as now 
it is once again a "housing development"....and people who want to walk 
through the development had better belong there - there will be rules as to 
who can and can not be there in among those houses.  (anybody remember 
"Jonestown" or Waco?  How about Jeffes' City?)

Now, as far as the homes themselves, the pics of the proposed houses (again, 
Mike is not building them, he is only providing the property and development 
of same), they each include garages that look to go right down to the 
street, and take up a lot the sidewalk (those that have such in front of 
them) to such a point that the City has asked that two of the sites not be 
developed in order to allow for more freedom in movement; i.e., there wasn't 
enough space for traffic or foot-traffic on lots 27 and 28 (I believe) that 
those were asked to remain as empty "green space."  Mike is not keen on that 
idea and I believe rejected it.  We'll see.  Dean, of course, agreed with 
Mike.  (Dean is the "self-appointed" mouth piece for Mike....)  Again, in 
reference to the homes themselves, Mike's original plans called for single 
story, not to exceed 20' roof-lines now includes some homes with "lofts" 
that exceed 25' roof-lines; this is something the neighbors specifically did 
not want to see, especially in-mas, due to the blocking and unsightliness of 
this.  But, again, Dean argues that THIS developer should be allowed to 
develop his property as he sees fit.  Also argued by Dean is that the set 
back for each property should be allowed to be less than the required 20', 
in some cases a little at 5-8'.

So, I again ask just what it is this particular developer has and why is he 
being allowed to used it to bulldoze his way through the City system to get 
a project approved that does NOTHING for the City?  In reality, this will 
undoubtedly be declared "church property development", the City will realize 
"0" in taxes and Wilson will have his plantation (big house and all) right 
in the middle of the busiest parts of Polk St.

Seriously, since Mike has YET to realize even a modicum of actuality in ANY 
of his projects, I doubt this one will do much more than waste a great deal 
of City time and resources to get it approved.  I just don't see this one 
going anywhere other than where his others have gone - and that is NO WHERE. 
  It just irks me that we, the TAX-PAYING citizenry has to once again foot 
the bill for this fool and his co-court-jesters just so Wilson can feel like 
a big man (no pun intended...well, ok - maybe a little.  Truth hurts, 
doesn't it big guy?)

Go to City Hall Community Development Office and take a look at the file.  
Look at the "Community Rules" that Mike re-printed off a development in 
Florida (not one of his) and see just how really ill-conceived and 
ill-advised this whole thing is.  Then talk to the neighbors.  I have not 
even begun to mention some of the issues that they have - one lady was even 
told (TOLD!!) that this development would impede on her back yard and she 
was going to have to just deal with it.  She didn't and won't, but it's 
interesting to see the dynamics at work here.



J  :]





>From: "mark seman" <fcs at moscow.com>
>To: "Bev Bafus" <bevbafus at verizon.net>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] North Polk Street (Was: Moscow City Council 
>MondayAgenda)
>Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:33:37 -0800
>
>I'd love to pick this up and run with it, but I don't know what I'd be
>running with.  The only info I have on this project is V2020 and past
>experience with developers.  From the very little I do know:
>"Streets" are maybe more correctly termed "drives" and should not be
>developed to "street standards."  Accomodation of emergency vehicles, yes;
>paving over greenspace to allow enough width for non-used onstreet parking,
>no.  At slow speeds, wide is bad, narrow is good.
>Small lots are good, but bad.  Infill needs to be allowed to increase
>density beyond "normal zoning."  Higher density is what helps allow smart
>development.  The main problem is: dense poor-development is worse that
>light poor-development.  Good development is hard to find, yet.
>Why should 8+ acres be divided into separate lots?  Most developers 
>continue
>to have very narrow vision regarding property lines - plop a house in the
>middle of a legally defined piece of land and totally disregard positive &
>negative space... oh, for the want of easy boundaries and walls.
>The automobile is the bain of our industrial society, whether it's
>pollution, energy consumption, land usurption, or pedestrian damage.  Until
>we learn new approaches to transportation, storage, use, or other vehicular
>accomodations, we will always be its slave.
>
>Any e-documents available that illustrate this development?
>
>Mark
>
>
>mark r. seman, architect
>        v=928.925.7617
>        f=928.776.9107
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Bev Bafus
>   Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:48 AM
>   To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] North Polk Street (Was: Moscow City Council
>Monday Agenda)
>
>
>   Thanks Steven -- I wondered if someone would pick up on this and run 
>with
>it...
>
>   The streets are a very real concern.  And you are absolutely right about
>the precedent being set.
>
>   There are other issues.  The lots are 5,000 square feet, and some are 
>much
>smaller.
>
>   The biggest problem I have is not with the developer, however, but with
>the process this has followed with the planning department.
>
>   The application has come in piecemeal, and keeps changing.  The
>engineering deaprtment originally had 23 items that needed correction, and
>suddenly, they have "all" be rectified - but I can't see anywhere where
>these items have actually been addressed.
>
>   Parking in this development is going to be a nightmare!
>
>   Anyone want to talk about this?  Contact me off list.
>
>   Thanks
>   Bev Bafus
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Steven Basoa
>     Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 4:22 PM
>     To: Basoa Steven
>     Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>     Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Moscow City Council Monday Agenda
>
>
>     When I first read the City Council agenda I laughed when I saw item 6
>(pasted below).  Oh my, I said, how sad.  It looks like someone is planning
>a gated community.  How insecure these people must be to want a gated
>community here in Moscow.  Why?  When I read Ms. Bafus' post (also below), 
>I
>laughed some more and said, I should have known.  But my concern isn't so
>much about a gated community but the proposed bending of the rules for it.
>The lot sizes have been changed, that doesn't seem to be so much of a
>problem but the last line of #6 bothers me.  The "public street standards
>have been waived due to the fact that the internal roadways are to be
>private."  This seems wrong on several levels.  The city of Moscow, Latah
>County and the state of Idaho all have their building and planning codes 
>and
>regulations for a reason.  I may not agree with all of them, but they are
>our standards.   All roadways within the city should be built to the 
>current
>standards.  This allows for greater traffic control and movement of safety
>vehicles (ambulances, fire trucks, etc).  What if the current owners decide
>to pack it in and move elsewhere?  What if they decide to break up the 
>gated
>community and allow it to become a 'normal' part of the community?  Then we
>would have yet another section of town with narrow and inefficient streets.
>Where else will the building codes and rules be altered to ease someone
>else's burden?  Sidewalks?  Plumbing?  Electric?   And when the next
>developer comes along and says, "Well, you changed the rules for them, why
>not for me?"  Where does it stop?  I urge the city council to not waive the
>public street standards.  I urge the city leaders (including, and maybe
>especially, the city managers) to stop playing fast and loose with the city
>codes and zoning issues.   Consistency and fair, unbiased enforcement of 
>the
>building codes should be the order of the day.  Instead it appears that 
>spot
>zoning and the waiving of building standards have become the norm.
>
>
>     It has been hard to write this post and not digress into a tirade 
>about
>the lack of intelligent planning on the part of Moscow's city leaders of 
>the
>past two decades.  I think the city desperately needs some sort of master
>plan for growth and development.  Otherwise we will continue to grow in the
>sprawling and disconnected manner of the recent past.   And that ain't good
>for anyone except maybe a few developers and contractors.
>
>
>     SB
>
>
>     6.       Public Hearing – Greensides Hill Preliminary Plat – Andrew
>Ackerman
>     On January 10, 2007, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended
>approval of a Preliminary Plat for division of approximately 8.2 acres of
>land into 37 single family lots on the west side of N. Polk Extension 
>called
>Greensides Hill.  The land currently consists of three parcels, each
>developed with a single family residence and zoned medium density, single
>family residential (R-2).  The proposal Preliminary Plat has associated 
>with
>it an approved Preliminary Planned Unit Development.  The R-2 Zoning
>District has a 7,000 square foot minimum lot size for single-family
>residential lots. Via the PUD process the lots have been permitted to be
>reduced from the minimum standard. Additionally, public street standards
>have been waived due to the fact that the internal roadways are to be
>private.
>
>
>     On Feb 2, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Bev Bafus wrote:
>
>
>     For anyone concerned about the direction of growth in the City of
>Moscow.....
>
>     And especially concerned about the way we allow growth in infill areas
>(lots surrounded by city that are undeveloped or underdeveloped).......
>
>     And concerned about the capricious and inconsistent treatment of
>proposals by City of Moscow Planning & Development........
>
>     Please attend this meeting on Monday.
>
>     Pay attention to the public hearing - item #6.
>
>     This is land on North Polk Street.
>
>     These parcels are owned by Mike & Linda Hoffman, Doug & Nancy Wilson,
>and Matt & Laura Gray.
>
>     Thanks
>     Bev Bafus
>
>
>
><< baU-orangeXX.JPG >>


>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline